TOPIC: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Salita v. Magtolis

Facts
• Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married but got separate in fact.
• Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s psychological incapacity.
• The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Cit wherein it is alleged that "sometime in 1987, petitioner came to realize that
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of their marriage, which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage
although the same became manifest only thereafter."
• Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted. Subsequently,
in his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified that — “at the time of their marriage,
respondent (Joselita Salita) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to
understand and accept the demands made by his profession — that of a newly
qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon petitioner's time and efforts so that she
frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose
intervention caused petitioner to lose his job.”
• Petitioner insists that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal
conclusion, not an averment of facts, and fail to point out the specific essential
marital obligations shall allegedly was not able to perform, and thus render the
Bill of Particulars insufficient if not irrelevant to her husband's cause of action.

Issue
Whether or not the Bill of Particulars submitted by herein respondent is of
sufficient definiteness or particularly as to enable herein petitioner to property prepare
her responsive pleading or for trial.

Ruling
• The court sustains the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of
Particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a cause of action, and
to require more details from private respondent would be to ask for information
on evidentiary matters. Indeed, petitioner has already been adequately apprised of
private respondent's cause of action against her.
• The court ordered the immediate resumption of the annulment proceedings which
have already been delayed for more than two years now, even before it could
reach its trial stage. Whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated should be
immediately determined. There is no point in unreasonably delaying the resolution
of the petition and prolonging the agony of the wedded couple who after coming
out from a storm still have the right to a renewed blissful life either alone or in
the company of each other.
• The Civil Code Revision Committee that drafted the Family Code did not give
any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of
examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principles
of ejusdem generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret the
provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
 church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given
persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.

Santos v CA

Facts
• Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia in Iloilo. The two exchanged
vows before Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding.
• Leouel and Julia lived with the latter's parents. Both had one child.
• Because of the frequent interference by Julia's parents into the young spouses'
family affairs, the couple would occasionally quarrel over a number of other things, like when
and where the couple should start living independently from Julia's parents or whenever Julia
would express resentment on Leouel's spending a few days with his own parents.
• Julia left for the United States of America to work as a nurse and only called up Leouel for the
first time after seven months. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract
but she never did.
• When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a training program
of the AFP, he desperately tried to locate, or to get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of
no avail.
• Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel led with the RTC of Negros
Oriental, a complaint for "Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code". Respondent
Julia, in her answer (through counsel), opposed the complaint and denied its allegations,
claiming, in main, that it was the petitioner who had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent.
• Julia ultimately led a manifestation, stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence.
Complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter
armed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint.

Issue
Whether or not the grounds of psychological incapacity in this case should be
appreciated for the nullity of their marriage

Ruling
• The Supreme Court denied the petition.
• Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as
so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. The
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated and must be
incurable.
• Mere abandonment cannot therefore qualify as psychological incapacity on the part of
Julia.
• Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) juridical antecedence, (b) gravity
and (c) incurability.
• The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity
to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
 psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.In the case at
bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because the
alleged psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings
presented. The factual settings do not come close to the standard required to decree a
nullity of marriage.

Tuason v CA

Facts
• Private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the RTC a petition for annulment or
declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R.Tuason
• Private Respondent alleged that:
1. She and petitioner were married and from this union had two children
2. At the time of marriage, petitioner was already psychologically incapacitated to
comply with his essential marital obligations which manifested afterward and
resulted in violent fights
3. In one of their fights, petitioner inflicted physical injuries on private respondent
4. Petitioner used prohibited drugs, was apprehended, sentenced to one year
suspended penalty, was not rehabilitated
5. Petitioner was a womanizer, left the conjugal home and cohabited with three
women in succession
6. Petitioner gave minimal support to the family
7. Petitioner became a big spender and abused his administration if the conjugal
partnership
• Attempts of reconciliation were made but to no avail because petitioner refused to
reform
• Petitioner argued in defense that he only left the conjugal home to cool off from their
extreme fights, that it is the private respondent who had been taking prohibited drugs and had a
serious affair with another man, and that he was compelled to dispose some of their conjugal
shares because of financial reverses
• Petitioner failed to appear in the hearing, implying that he has waived his right to present
evidence. Case was submitted for decision.
• RTC decision: Declared the nullity of private respondent’s marriage to petitioner and awarding
custody of children to private respondent
• Petitioner filed with trial court a petition for relief from judgment and was denied.
• Petitioner appealed before CA and was denied.

Issue
Whether or not a petition for relief from judgment is warranted under the circumstances
of the case.

Ruling
• Under the rules, a final and executory judgment or order of the Regional Trial Court may
be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. In
addition, the petitioner must assert facts showing that he has a good, substantial and
meritorious defense or cause of action. 11 If the petition is granted, the court shall
proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been
granted therein.
 • In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioner's marriage to private respondent had
already become final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal during the
reglementary period.
• A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed only in
exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy. Relief will not
be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the
loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief
can be used to revive the right to appeal which have been lost through inexcusable
negligence.
• Petitioner also refutes the testimonies of private respondent's witnesses, particularly Dr.
Samuel Wiley and Ms. Adelita Prieto, as biased, incredible and hearsay. Petitioner
alleges that if he were able to present his evidence, he could have testified that he was
not psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage as indicated by the fact that
during their first ten years, he and private respondent lived together with their children as
one normal and happy family, that he continued supporting his family even after he left
the conjugal dwelling and that his work as owner and operator of a radio and television
corporation places him in the public eye and makes him a good subject for malicious
gossip linking him with various women. These facts, according to petitioner, should
disprove the ground for annulment of his marriage to petitioner.
• The finding of the trial court as to the existence or non- existence of petitioner's
psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us. Petitioner
has not sufficiently shown that the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the
testimonies of private respondent's witnesses vis-a-vis petitioner's defenses are clearly
and manifestly erroneous.

Chi Ming Tsoi v CA

Facts
• On 22 May 1988, plaintiff and the defendant got married. Although they slept in the
same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, no sexual intercourse took place.
• Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations. She was found
healthy, normal and still a virgin. Her husband’s examination was kept confidential.
• The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual, and that the
defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status here
in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. The plaintiff is
not willing to reconcile with her husband.
• The defendant claims that should the marriage be annulled, it is his wife’s fault. He
claims no defect on his part, as he was found not to be impotent, and any differences
between the two of them can still be reconciled. He admitted that they have not had
intercourse since their marriage until their separation because his wife avoided him. He
added that his wife filed this case against him because she is afraid that she will be
forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and, that the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.
• The trial court declared the marriage void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.

Issue

Whether or not petitioner is psychologically incapacitated

Ruling

• Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is equivalent to

psychological incapacity.
• Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten
months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical
disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage
is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the
Court clearly demonstrates an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage’ within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
• "If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus,
the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is
considered a sign of psychological incapacity."
• One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “to procreate children
based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation
is the basic end of marriage.” In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of
one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity.

Republic v CA and Molina

Facts
• Spouses Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were married on April 14, 1985; that a son, Andre
O. Molina was born.
• After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a
husband and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends
on whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his parents for aid and
assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting in
frequent quarrels between them.
• Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the sole
breadwinner of the family; the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which
their relationship was estranged;
• Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio City;
• A few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned
them.
• Reynaldo had shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential
marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrelsome individual who
thought of himself as a king to be served; and that it would be to the couples best
interest to have their marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what
appeared to be an incompatible marriage from the start.

Issue
Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling
 • No, the marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. There is no
clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears
to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of
some marital obligations. Mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences" and
"conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not
enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as
married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due
to some psychological (not physical) illness. The evidence adduced by respondent
merely showed that she and her husband could not get along with each other. There had
been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability.
• Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, “A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
only after its solemnization.”
• The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity;
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision;
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the
marriage;
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex;
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage;
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of
the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision;
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor
General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein
his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The
Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for
resolution of the court.

In Leouel Santos v Court of Appeals, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled
that “psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity . . .
and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.” Citing
Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the
Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, Justice Vitug wrote that “the psychological incapacity must
be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.”

Hernandez v CA

Facts
• Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in Dasmarinas when lucita was
Marcio’s teacher for two consecutive semesters. Lucita was 5 years older than Marcio.
They later on became sweethearts and eventually got married. They also had a child.
• Lucita supported the family as her husband continued studying, supported by his
parents.
• Marcio had an extra-marital relation with another student who was also married. When
Lucita discovered this, he asked Lucio to end it. He promised to but did not fulfill it and
left their conjugal home and child.
• After some time, he returned to Lucita and she accepted him. However, his attitude
worsened when he got employed to Reynold Philippines, Inc. He engaged in extreme
promiscuous conduct during the latter part of 1986.
• As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected petitioner. Petitioner
averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their eldest
child who was then barely a year old.
• On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her
marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity.
• RTC and CA denied the petition. Hence, this case.

Issue
Whether or not the marriage of petitioner and private respondent should be annulled on the
ground of private respondent's psychological incapacity

Ruling
• The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage.
• Private respondent's alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering
from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be
shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make private
respondent's completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital
state, and not merely due to private respondent's youth and self-conscious feeling of
being handsome, as the appellate court held.
• As pointed out in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals: The root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by the experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
• Certainly, petitioner-appellant’s declaration that at the time of their marriage her
respondent-husband’s character was on the “borderline between a responsible person.
 and the happy-go-lucky,” could not constitute the psychological incapacity in
contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.

Marcos v Marcos

Facts
• Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos and they had five children.
• Claiming that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have
resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the
marriage for psychological incapacity.
• The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was however reversed
by CA.

Issue
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.

Ruling
• The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court
inSantos v. Court of Appeals: "psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." The foregoing guidelines do not
require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically identified." What is
important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's
psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
concerned need not be resorted to.
• Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material
support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the
totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part.
There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of
the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be
attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period
of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk,
failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home. Thus, his
alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of
the marriage.
• Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially
now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot declare the
dissolution of the marriage for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurabilty
and for her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and Molina.

Republic v Dagdag

Facts
• Erlinda Matias (16) married Avelino Dagdag (20) on Sept. 1, 1975 and had two children.
 • A week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He
would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a few months, then disappear again.
• During the times when he was with his family, he indulged in drinking sprees with friends
and would return home drunk. He would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse
and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her.
• He left his family again and that was the last they heard from him. Erlinda learned that
Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail.
• Erlinda filed with the RTC a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity. Since Avelino could not be located, summons was
served by publication in the Olongapo News, a newspaper of general circulation.
• RTC rendered decision in favor of Erlinda. CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence, this
appeal.

Issue
Whether or not Avelino is psychologically incapacitated

Ruling
• No. it is evident that Erlinda failed to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary
requirements. Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which requires that the root
cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and
sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the
alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.
• Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently
proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged. CA’s decision
is set aside.

Sin v Sin

Facts
• Florence is married to Philipp, a Portuguese citizen. Several years after they were
married, Florence filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage.
• The trial court dismissed the petition so Florence elevated the case to the CA, which
affirmed the decision.Hence this appeal.

Issue
Whether or not psychological capacity was adequately proven

Ruling
• Throughout the trial in the lower court, the State did not participate in the proceedings.
After filing a manifestation in the trial court that he found on collusion between the
parties, the Fiscal did not actively participate therein and neither did the presiding judge
take any step to encourage him to contribute to the proceedings.
• Citing Article 48 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court held that the lack of participation
of the State was not cured by the fact that the evil sought to be prevented did not come
about when the lower court dismissed the petition. The task of protecting marriage as an
inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-
forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the
defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.
 • In Republic of the Philippines vs. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, while we upheld the validity of
the marriage, we nevertheless characterized the decision of the trial court as
“prematurely rendered” since the investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity
to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. This stresses the
importance of the participation of the State.
• Having so ruled, the court declines to rule on the factual disputes of the case, this being
within the province of the trial court upon proper re-trial.

Pesca v Pesca

Facts
• Petitioner and private respondent married in 1975 and had four children.
• She contends that respondent surprisingly showed signs of “psychological incapacity” to
perform his marital obligations starting 1988.
• His “true color” of being an emotionally immature and irresponsible husband became
apparent. He was cruel and violent. He was a habitual drinker, staying with friends daily
from 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon until 1:00 o’clock in the morning. When cautioned to
stop or, to at least, minimize his drinking, respondent would beat, slap and kick her. At
one time, he chased petitioner with a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the
presence of the children. The children themselves were not spared from physical
violence.
• Petitioner and her children left the conjugal abode to live in the house of her sister in
Quezon City as they could no longer bear his violent ways. Two months later, she
returned home to give him a chance to change. But, to her dismay, things did not so turn
out as expected. On the morning of 22 March 1994, respondent assaulted petitioner for
about half an hour in the presence of the children. She was battered black and blue. He
was imprisoned for 11 days for slight physical injuries.
• Petitioner sued respondent before the Regional Trial Court for the declaration of nullity of
their marriage invoking psychological incapacity. The trial court declared their marriage
to be null and void ab initio on the basis of psychological incapacity on the part of
respondent and ordered the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
• Respondent appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, which in turn
reversed the decision of the trial court. Thus, the marriage of respondent and petitioner
still subsists.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the appellate court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.

(2) Whether or not the guidelines in the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina
should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature.

Ruling

(1) The appellate court did not err in its assailed decision for there was absolutely no evidence
showed and proved by petitioner the psychological incapacity on the part of respondent. Article
36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as
extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances. Psychological incapacity, as laid
down in the case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals and further explained in Republic vs. Court of
Appeals and Molina, refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party
to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family
Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
render help and support.

(2) The “doctrine of stare decisis,” ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
The rule follows the settled legal maxim – “legis interpretado legis vim obtinet” – that the
interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The
interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the contemporaneous legislative
intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that
law as of the date the statute is enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself
later overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied
prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith
in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit.”

Thus the term psychological incapacity, borrowed from the Canon Law, was given legal life by
the Court in the case of Santos; in the case of Molina, additional procedural guidelines to assist
the courts and the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages grounded on psychological
incapacity was added. Both judicial decisions in Santos and Molina have the force and effect of
law. Thus, the guidelines in the case of Molina are mandatory in nature. The petition was
denied.

Choa v Choa

Facts
• Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married and had 2 children.
• In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an
amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological
incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented
quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case.
• Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which
shows latter’s psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that
his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country.

Issue
Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling

• The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in
any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was
insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso
testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s personality namely lack of
attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and
none of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.
• Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence,
and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the
 performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity.
• Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove
root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses
had an incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through
psychotherapy. The totality of evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain
a finding of psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or
psychological examination.

Barelona v CA

Facts
• Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five children.
• Private respondent Tadeo R. Bengzon filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against
petitioner Diana M. Barcelona.
• Petition further alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the
time of the celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the present time.
• The petition alleged the non-complied marital obligations. During their marriage, they
had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing.
• The respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of
re-evaluating her feelings with petitioner, requested the latter to temporarily leave their
conjugal dwelling. In his desire to keep peace in the family and to safeguard the
respondent‘s pregnancy, the petitioner was compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling.
The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity
subsisted up to and until the present time.
• Such incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on
the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Diana claims that petitioner
falls short of the guidelines stated in Molina case and there is no cause for action.

Issue
Whether or not psychological incapacity is appreciated.

Ruling
ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants such as those enumerated
in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability.
The elements of Psychological incapacity are:

(a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

(b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
(c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.